Annie, you could be right – two tactics in one. To clarify what I originally meant, I believe that the culture of diplomacy is very different in the Middle East, and that there are similarities in ancient and modern times. They just do things differently over there, and that we in the U.S. often misinterpret intentions. The analogy to history was to point out that “traditional” reactions are a choice between Confrontation and Appeasement. On the one hand, not backing down is a source of respect, and total appeasement a sign of weakness. Somewhere in between is the “right” way – in the past, it meant being patient and demanding respect, without provoking an opponent into a corner.

Greta – you certainly could be right that it’s related to the whole nuclear weapons issue. If we pass “this” test, perhaps the Iranian government will deal with the U.S. and the west differently from now on.

I don’t know – it’s just a theory!

Hopefully Obama will keep his cool as usual and the rest of the world will apply pressure and that poor woman will get to come home.

The linguistic part of what you wrote about is interesting. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

If this is a test of our reactions then it is a test of our nuclear intentions.